Introduction

Published: 14/12/2022

Technological progress has always led to social and cultural change. Technology has raised great hopes and at the same time great fears. It has changed man’s environment, but also man himself and his attitude to the world. The watershed since which these changes gained rapid momentum was the Industrial Revolution.

Both nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy and sociology are full of reflections on these changes. Many of these descriptions, today, seem exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness. But – on the other hand – we cannot shake off the impression that some of the most far-reaching imaginings of science fiction writers, from Jules Verne to Stanisław Lem, are beginning to be realised in the present day.

Artificial intelligence is already revolutionising many areas of our lives. It is a useful tool and we are already using it in more and more areas of life. But in this case, our dilemmas go even further than those faced by earlier technical inventions. AI is forcing us anew to ask ourselves fundamental philosophical questions: what is intelligence and consciousness, what is a self-aware subject. How does artificial intelligence differ from human intelligence and can it replace it? Can we imagine a machine, a robot, that will not only be conscious in the sense of perceiving the environment and reacting to its changes, adapting its actions to these changes, but also be self-aware, have self-awareness?

This is still a long way off and we don’t know if it is even possible, but we are already talking about autonomous machines, equipped with developed AI, which themselves decide to act in certain situations. Experts speak of delegated autonomy. The very possibility of such delegation represents a revolution, raising fundamental ethical questions. Human actions have, as we know, not only an instrumental dimension, but also a moral one. We do not judge them for their effectiveness, but also from the point of view of ethical good. According to some opinions, the use of AI will allow to detach ethical decisions from subjective judgments and to ensure that the decision is as objectively optimal as it can be.

The same situation should lead to the same choice, regardless of who is the one making it, so the subject and its subjective attitude becomes irrelevant.

It is, however, a big question mark as to whether this really constituted ‘moral progress’, whether we would want to live in a world in which this kind of ‘objectivity’ is a rule.

These many other questions require a great deal of reflection – and interdisciplinary reflection, including philosophical and theological reflection. I think there is still too little of it, especially in our country. That is why the GovTech Centre’s essay competition on cultural and social impacts is such a valuable initiative. The best essays have been collected in this publication and their authors awarded. The organisers and the members of the jury, which I had the honour to chair, hope that this competition will contribute both to ensuring that these talented authors continue to deal with this issue in depth and that it will stimulate the interest of others and popularise the subject.